Bureaucratic delays not an excuse for filing appeals beyond the period of limitation.
In this post we will discuss about the law of limitation and whether government bodies can file a case beyond this period of limitation on the grounds of bureaucratic delay.
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA) is an act passed by the Parliament in 2016 that came into effect fully from 1st May, 2017.It seeks to protect home-buyers as well as help boost investments in the real estate sector by bringing efficiency and transparency in the sale/purchase of real estate. The Act establishes Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) in each state for regulation of the real estate sector and also acts as an adjudicating body for speedy dispute resolution.
FACTS:
Facts are being taken from Application No. 218 of 2020 in Appeal No. 220 of 2019.A perusal of the application reveals a delay on account of procedures adopted by the office of the applicant/ appellant. The impugned order was passed on 22.102019 and the copy was received in the applicant’s office on 19.11.2019, where after, till the filing of the appeal, the file meandered through various channels resulting in the delay. The Hon’ble High Court in several matters.
ISSUES:
In this case SC warned the Union government and its departments that bureaucratic delays could not be cited as an excuse or a ground for filing appeals beyond the period of limitation of 90 days and also said that “the law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the government. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.”
It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of con donation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions.
It is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Con donation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.
ALSO READ- TIME LIMIT FOR APPEAL REVISION REVIEW IN CRIMINAL CIVIL CASES
CITE JUDGEMENTS QUOTED ON SETTLED LAW:
In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, (1987) 2 SCC 107, while considering “sufficient cause” in the light of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, this Court pointed out various principles for adopting liberal approach in condoning the delay in matters instituted in this Court. Learned ASG heavily relied on the following principles:-
- “Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
- Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
- “Every day’s delay must be explained” does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour’s delay, every second’s delay? The doctrine 6 must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.
- When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.
- There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.
- It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.” By showing the above principles, learned ASG submitted that there is no warrant for according step-motherly treatment when the “State” is the applicant. It is relevant to mention that in this case, the delay was only for four days
In State of Haryana vs. Chandra Mani and Others, (1996) 3 SCC 132, while condoning the delay of 109 days in filing the LPA before the High Court, this Court has observed that certain amount of latitude within reasonable limits is permissible having regard to impersonal bureaucratic setup involving red-tapism. In the same decision, this Court directed the State to constitute legal cells to examine whether any legal principles are involved for decision by the courts or whether cases required adjustment at governmental level.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
Section 43 (5) of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA) regarding deposit of minimum 30 per cent of the amount in contention before a promoter’s appeal is “entertained” by the Tribunal is “obligatory” and “mandatory”.
Section 44 “Application for settlement of disputes and appeals to Appellate Tribunal” – The Real Estate (Regulation and Development Act, 2016)
(1) The appropriate Government or the competent authority or any person aggrieved by any direction or order or decision of the Authority or the adjudicating officer may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.
(2) Every appeal made under sub-section (1) shall be preferred within a period of sixty days from the date on which a copy of the direction or order or decision made by the Authority or the adjudicating officer is received by the appropriate Government or the competent authority or the aggrieved person and it shall be in such form and accompanied by such fee, as may be prescribed:
Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may entertain any appeal after the expiry of sixty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filling it within that period.
(3) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), the Appellate Tribunal may after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders, including interim orders, as it thinks fit.
(4) The Appellate Tribunal shall send a copy of every order made by it to the parties and to the Authority or the adjudicating officer, as the case may be.
(5) The appeal preferred under sub-section (1), shall be dealt with by it as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made by it to dispose of the appeal within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of appeal:
Provided that where any such appeal could not be disposed of within the said period of sixty days, the Appellate Tribunal shall record its reasons in writing for not disposing of the appeal within that period.
(6) The Appellate Tribunal may, for the purpose of examining the legality or propriety or correctness of any order or decision of the Authority or the adjudicating officer, on its own motion or otherwise, call for the records relevant to deposing of such appeal and make such orders as it thinks fit.
ALSO READ- LIMITATION IN FILING CRIMINAL CASES AS PER CRPC
CONCLUSION
In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/ years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process.
The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Con donation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.
In view of our conclusion on issue (a), there is no need to go into the merits of the issues (b) and (c). The question of law raised is left open to be decided in an appropriate case. In the light of the above discussion, the appeals fail and are dismissed on the ground of delay. No order as to costs.
This post was written by Pranothi Rana.
For case specific advice, please contact best top RERA Punjab Appellate Tribunal Lawyers Advocate Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Derabassi Kharar Zirakpur.
More on 99888-17966.
